COMMENT: The Hugen group sees the complementary roles as valid for the home but not for the Church. To best understand this position, go here. For a complementarian response to this idea of being Comp in the home but not in the Church, read Vern Poythress “Church as Family” available here. Whether you are one or the other, or an Egalitarian, you must have strong, exegetical answers to those challenges presented by each side on these questions. We’ve watched the Egal camp breaking into smaller groups. Question 4 is probably the last line of agreement between all Comp, and is swiftly followed by a ton of splintering opinions on how to pratice the now stated beliefs. For example, there is debate over whether a woman can function in certain (seemingly) forbidden roles, if she does so under the authority of her husband. There is much disagreement on what roles within the Church a woman may or may not exercise. At this point, many Comp will admit some ambiguity in how to clearly draw lines. The most taken route, as far as I can tell, is reserving only the role of Elder/Overseer (or senior/teaching Pastor) for men, though many will forbid women to teach in any setting where men will be learning such as a mix-gendered Sunday school class or even forbid women to read scripture aloud in a mix-gendered meeting because, they will argue, that is a form of teaching or ministering the Word. There is not enough room to describe all the facets of this issue. I found both Hugenberger and Poythress enlightening here with one arguing for Egal and the other for Comp within the Church. The questions arising here are where the rubber meets the road, so mostly are practical and personal. Further Questions:

Should gunai be translated as wife or woman in various contexts?

How far can we carry the fact that the Church is modeled after the family?

Does a look at Church History’s interpretation of this debate or practices enlighten the discussion at all?

What roles are forbidden/allowed?

Can the reserved roles be temporarily practiced by a woman under the authority of her husband?

What about the mission field? Women missionaries? Young churches with no qualified men?

Well, this brings us to the end of this particular flow chart. Someone in each camp could come up with a flow chart helping folks walk through the practical applications of each view. Perhaps I will do that for my view whenever I have the time. At this point, I just want to reiterate that while I believe I am right and that this issue has implications (good or bad) for the Church, we must all remember that the folks in the other camps are humans, made in the image of God…no less than sons and daughters of the most high. Also, this is perhaps the most personal theological issue because it involves the very nature of people. I’ve never seen someone weep over folks disagreeing with their eschatology, but I have seen it over this issue, multiple times. But of course, just because it is personal doesn’t mean that there isn’t a right or wrong answer or that we shouldn’t press forward in understanding and persuasion. Just remember to walk softly, because you are treading on hearts.

I’d love to hear anyones feedback on this…even if you’d like to point others to this series and get their input, that would be great.

COMMENT: This step is the real point of departure between most Comp and Egal. It is the step where most of the debate is taking place as well, though there is much in the next Question as well. The difference (discussed in question 2 earlier) between men and women in creation, for the Comp and for the Hugen, most naturally plays itself out in the hierarchy of the home, whereas many Egal who would answer question 2 affirmatively would then balk at those differences of creation necessitating differentiation of roles, in the home or elsewhere. Questions you must wrestle with to actually say that you’ve done the work to make your own decision are below. Again, I know that folks will answer these all differently, and while I think that I am correct in how I answer then, I think you’ll find that in answering these smaller questions will help show you what general camp you fit into. Various ones of them are asked by one camp to the other, so depending on which you read, you might think that a particular question is biased, but as I’m sure you’ll find in this world if you haven’t already, all questions are biased in the sense that they are trying to get to the truth and believe that it can only be found on the other side of their interrogative statement however snide or gracious said question is. Lastly, the final question is from a Comp or Hugen viewpoint and is getting to how their view works itself out in the home. Without further ado, here are the questions:

Are the roles we see a result of the Fall or were those roles in effect pre-Fall and then merely warped by the Fall? Or said another way, was the Fall a distortion of pre-Fall roles or were the roles described at the Fall actually curses? And again, if we were to do marriage like Eden, would we return to loving hierarchy or loving equality of roles. One final: Are the roles in Eph 5 and elsewhere a return to Eden or a making the best of the curse. If role equality was the state in Eden, why might Paul have chosen to not recommend that practice in Eph 5?

Connected to the previous question, what does Genesis 3:16 mean? Can “desire” be taken in a positive sense as a part of the curse? Is the parallel (6 exact Hebrew words) between Gen 3:16 and Gen 4:7 informative, conclusive, or coincidence?

Do the further curses of the ground and childbearing lend weight to one position or the other?

Is Adam’s naming of Eve indicative of anything?

Is the fact that Scripture holds Adam accountable for the Fall informative? See Gen 3, 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49.

Does the command in Eph 5:21 for mutual submission trump the apparent roles defined in the rest of the Chapter?

Does Galatians 3:28 end some, any, or all roles? Does the context of the passage lend itself to that? Is Paul arguing that Christ renders roles obsolete?

Are the roles we see in Scripture merely a cultural phenomenon? If so, why doesn’t Paul actually mention those things? If the Artemis cult was causing problems, why not say something? It’s been argued that the situation was just that wives were younger than husbands and needed training up, in a sense, but was there not one or two who had some education, which Paul would allow to teach or hold a place of authority if it was just an education issue? Or maybe Paul acquiesced to the culture in this area, if so, why appeal to Adam and Eve instead of what there was in the culture that gave men the authority?

Are the relationships within the Trinity a model for the family/church?

Is the Fatherhood of God informative?

Does kefelh mean authority or source in 1 Cor 11? If source, is authority still implied?

What does it look like for a woman to submit to her husband? Imagine a spectrum where at one end the wife behaves like a doormat and on the other end, she is a dominatrix. Where, in between these two poles, should the pendulum rest? How practically does that play out?

There may be more questions than this. If you know of more, let me know and share them in the comments sections.

COMMENT: If you believe that there is no difference in the natural makeup of men and women, then you can stop here as one assenting to a classical form of Egalitarianism. However, there are many who would call themselves Egalitarian (probably most Egalitarians today) who would answer affirmatively to this question. I, personally, see a negative answer here as, not just wrong, but sub-Christian with no grounding in respectable exegesis or theological reflection. To answer the previous question negatively assumes that in the Trinity there is a more-God part and a less-God part. To answer negatively here is to argue that there is no differentiation of persons within the Godhead. If man and woman, together, are in God’s image, then while there is equality of persons, there must also be differentiation, for it is so within the persons of the Godhead, which further demands, then, that there is a differentiation between male and female. Further Questions that you must wrestle with include:

What is the meaning of “helper” in Genesis 2?

Why does Paul seem to think that there is some significance to Adam’s being created before Eve? See 1 Tim 2:13-14.

Is Jesus being a 2nd Adam informative? See Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15.

For resources, at this point, I would recommend reading summaries of the positions. One place to look are the at books. There are 2 books entitled Women in the Church (here and here). The first is written from an egalitarian position and the second from a complementarian position. Or you can see this book which puts forth arguments from both sides of the equation. You can also visit websites of the two main groups that seem to speak for each side. The Counsel for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood represents the complementarian position and Christians for Biblical Equality represents the egalitarian position. There are recommended resources, books, articles, lectures, etc posted on each site.

There are tons more books on both sides of this conversation. I recommend starting with articles or the various books that present both sides as they typically streamline each argument, though they can’t nuance or go into as great of depth in an article though it also, often, keeps the author for wandering as well. If you know of other resources that should be included, please leave it in the comments section.

First, how this works. The first box in the below image, poses the question to answer. The second box suggests some of the Biblical passages that should be consulted in order to help answer the question. The last 2 boxes will take your answer to the question and show you which group you would fit into because of that answer. As mentioned in the previous post on this topic, my goal is not to push my opinion on the issue or try to sway those who are walking through the process. A process from which I am not far removed. I do think I’m correct (until enlightened otherwise), and in a final post in this series, I will share my thoughts, but I simply want to put forward all of the questions that each side poses as I can, point to some resources, and challenge unquestioned attitudes and thoughts. The truth is that I think each side has an answer to the questions posed by the other side. And so, we must make our decisions based on how well the opposing side answers the questions that are put to them. Or put another way for our own search, we should accept all of the questions, but not all of the answers.

Now a second point – a clarification of terms. Due to space, I’ve used the following abbreviations. I do realize that these groups are not one size fits all, and I’ve tried to note where divergences occur within each designation. Feel free to force me to clarify on this even more.

Comp = Complementarian

Egal = Egalitarian

Hugen = This is a category of people who believe that the structure of the family ought to be Complementarian (in the home), but Egalitarian in the Church. I do not know who first communicated this position, but I was introduced to it be Gordon Hugenberger, hence I have called it “Hugen” for this discussion.

COMMENT: This question is a good place to start. Nothing controversial, but it gets us moving along a solid line of thought, in my mind. And to put it simply, there is no category within orthodox Christianity allowing a negative answer to this question. I believe that fact to be quite clear from the creation account, particularly the indicative statement that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Because man AND woman together are in God’s image, to argue that woman is less than man is to argue that some part of the Trinity is less than another part. Because there is no Person within the Godhead that is less-God, there cannot be one within Man (capital M, read: Mankind, if you like) that is less-Man than the other; otherwise, we would not be in God’s image.

Lastly, some men and women behave as if the answer to this question is “no” though they might not actually answer it that way. This practical area of sub-Christian behavior needs a strong dose of Trinitarian theology and pointed rebuke.

Share this:

Like this:

I read a quote today…I’m not sure if I even remember the context, but it made me think about something…

How hard would it be to truly welcome a repentent pedophile back into fellowship within the Church? Obviously, we are called to forgive and welcome them back. At first I thought, “Well, it’s easy. You allow them back in, but you watch them carefully.” But, then I asked, “What kind of fellowship would people have with them and what kind of fellowship would they have with people if their presence was welcomed with 24/7 watching? That doesn’t sound like much of a fellowship. Yet, we are called to be wise as serpents. So, for me it’s a conundrum. Either fellowship isn’t truly fellowship or you let down your guard completely. I guess the best place to start is to be a person and a church that really believes in forgiveness and new birth, and a person and church that speaks openly and honestly about the difficulties with the person and the rest of the body, acknowledging the coming awkwardness, but hellbent on pushing into it. Any thoughts?